Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Sex Detective Christmas Special, part one

Joy to the fucking world, god-lovers.  I'm the first to admit that I'm not overly familiar with Christian mythology, but you would have to go along way to find someone who doesn't know the story of Christmas, and the figures responsible for the whole gift giving craze that has been exploited by the retail industry as a result.  That's right, those three magi who camel-trekked all the way from fuck-knows-where to deliver pressies to the infant king of the Jews in Bethlehem one starry night.  Loaded down with gold and ancient toiletries, they supposedly decided to hook up, hit the road and follow a star until they found some kid in a manger to offload their goodies.

Now before I get into belittling a bunch of horrible things here, I just want to take time out to question the logistics of this part of the legend.  These dudes were goddamn kings from foreign lands, rights?  Not one, but three (trinitarianism is big in this religion as you probably know) ancient sovereign leaders who apparently set aside any differences, buried any potential rivalries and joined to hand deliver valuable commodities outside their own respective nations.  And trust me, the Middle-East back then wasn't any friendlier than it is today.  So, my question to you is: do you have any conceivable idea of just how frighteningly massive the triple entourage for these muther-fuckers would be in order to spend weeks crossing deserts and borders on this unified quest?  Bethlehem would have assumed it was being besieged by allied forces.  Personal bodyguard armies, servants, slaves, supply trains, chicks to peel grapes.  Magi did not screw around when it came to road trips, they couldn't afford to.  Nowadays if a foreign dignitary knocks on your barn door you might see a few guys in dark suits with shoulder bulges, but back then only deterrent to bandits, local militias and greedy nobility was a show of power.  So go ahead and re-read the nativity story, only now picture an extra thousand heavily armed men hanging around the town.  And you wonder why there was no room at the inn?

Anyway, the great thing about vaguely described, historically ambiguous events like the nativity is that you can apply a little poetic license to what is the second most important date in the Christian calendar.  Here are some of the results.


Eeek!  When you buy this for your front yard all your neighbours buy lawn darts.  Any kid who isn't using this retarded balloon show as a bouncy castle by the end of the day is in a cancer ward praying for a Christmas miracle, or, as depicted here, throwing up gang signs (or possible pretending to be airplanes, I'm not sure).













Huh?  It was a good 1800 years after Christ that St Nick was conceived, so how is he visiting the baby messiah back in Bethlehem to give him presents on the holiday that wasn't possible until after Christ died?  It's this sort of magical time-travelling escapade that fucks up universes, Santa.  Also, when I first read the signage above the stable I thought it was a flagrant act of narcissism that said "O Come Let Us Adore Kim".










Just enjoy the look of horrified surprise on these little faces, will you?  And no fucking wonder after they discover that baby Jesus has just been shoved into a jar.














Now here we have a more solemn and peaceful depiction of - OH DEAR GOD WHAT ARE THOSE THINGS STARING THROUGH THE WINDOW?!  Mutant sheep?  Aliens?  A three-headed alien sheep?  No wonder the crib is soaked with urine.















Nothing says Christmas like Dicky Costumes
From what I can tell, in the costume industry 'egg-nog' is code for 'opium' because that is the only way to explain these ideas.  As for the consumer who wears them, I can only blame their paint sniffing mothers.



I.... nah, I got nothing.
 As a costume catalogue model you will one day fall so low in your career that even your agent refers to you as "the penis turkey neck guy.
 Savour the irony of the term 'gay bashing' when you rock up to a party, strike this pose, then watch every homosexual in the joint come at you with fists swinging.
Now here's the conumdrum: you can't possible wear this piece of insanity sober, yet there's no way you can survive the night in it drunk.  The solution?  Gift-wrapped cubes of cement on your feet and stand in a dark corner in the hope that no one tries wiring you to a power outlet.















Christmas and Sexiness?
Christmas is a time for family, for thoughtful celebration, sharing, forgiveness, joy and boobies.

Ho-ho-hoe!

However, there's apoint where sexing up what is otherwise intended to be a G-rated holiday starts to creep into fetish territory.  Flower-pressing a couple of albino gerbils then gluing them to tits probably qualifies.  Oh, wait, according to the inset there it's just the cheaply crafted visage of an old, bearded man whose nose may or may not be a nipple.  That's okay then.  Still, the toxic slug adhesive seems to be causing her an aneurism.












And now the horror...

Somehwere in suburbia there's a mantlepiece with this family portrait sitting on it.  I want you to think very carefully about that fact.  One fateful night dozens of friends and relatives received this as an email attachment with the banner "Seasons Greetings, wish you were here!" (on Incest Murder-Cult Island Resort).
Look, for all I know, this family has hundreds of fig-leaf themed photo albums and that this one is only differentiated by the addition of Santa hats.  They could just be Creationist Purists trying to live out some Edenistic ideal.  I'm sure the child welfare authorities will take that into account when they order in the SWAT team.








Department store Santa portrait?  Don't be niave, this is the last 'proof-of-life' photo sent by a pyschotic kidnapper before the cops raided the throne room of his basement meth lab.  Luckily little Tammy survived, but to this day she refuses to live in any house with a chimney.

Saturday, July 31, 2010

More Sex Detective Bullshit Relationship Advice

I love checking out relationship advice columns online.  They're always being run by some collection of self-proclaimed experts who either have credentials in loosely related fields or have published an overtly femminist/mysoginistic instruction manual on how sexual relations work.  Me, I wouldn't have a clue.  I'm more of an expert on how relationships don't work, but unlike all these other people I'm not pushing a product.  In fact, it may come as a surprise to absolutely no-one that Kidd Vengeance isn't even my real name ('Steele Bonemaster' as a blog was already taken), the same way that Sex Detective is not a real thing.  But this is the internet, kids, a fantasy playground where all is but a fanciful illusion.  With boobies.

During my cyber travels into the minds of humans who are seriously too lazy to work shit out for themselves, a few commonly restated questions to do with how men and women head-fuck each other come up.  I've tackled the whole dishonesty thing before, but the underlying problem in most cases involves someone lying blatantly to him or herself.



"I was in a relationship with a fantastic girl for over a year, then recently we decided to mutually end it.  However, she's a great person and we both want to remain the best of friends.  Does that ever work out?"

What!?  Hell, no, dude.  I mean, okay, you'll meet all sorts of delusional people who'll tell you how they became besties with their ex.  These people are clearly insane or drinking paint.  Sure, if you don't see each other for 10 years and then reunite to form some sort of civil acquaintance, then more power to you, but you've described your break up as 'recent'.  Also, don't lie straight to my face.  No one 'mutually decides' to break up.  Ever.  You're just trying to cover the fact she dumped your ass, loser.  But, if you think you and her can still become BFFs then I want you to try the following, highly perverse thought exercise.

Mental Litmus Test

Picture yourself walking in on your ex having sex.  I'm not talking about the adequate, cutesy, lovemaking shit you used to share.  I'm talking hardcore, rabid gorilla sex, where she's making sounds you never heard before, in between begging him to cum on her face.  Also, the dude sending her to heaven through her spasm chasm is known to you.  Picture a good mate, a hated enemy, your brother, the local priest, whatever.  You quietly retreat out through the back door (kinda the opposite of what he's doing to her, got it?).
Do you feel:

A: that embarrassed, dissonant combination of disgust and arousal, but on the whole are happy that your new 'best friend' is copping some decent jack-hammering for a change?

Or

B: filled with despair, rage, grief and overall jealousy, only you're too impotent to act on it because of the whole 'still be stupid friends' agreement?

If you chose 'A' then congratulations, you're one of the 1% of high functioning sociopaths who can lie cleanly to yourself.  If you chose 'B' then you have your answer.  Not only is it almost impossible to remain close friends with an ex after a recent break-up, it's also downright unhealthy.  And if she was the one to suggest such a bag of shit to you then screw her sister/mother/fellow cheerleader, send her the footage and set her straight.


"What's the deal with Cougars?  Why are older women after younger guys, and why are guys my age becoming Cougar hunters?  It's as bad as the whole old rich guy/young girl thing!"
This is not a new thing, buddy, it's just that mass media has turned it from being creepy to trendy through TV, movies and websites.  During the '90s it happened all the time, only much more discreetly out of different norms and peer expectations.  The 1990's was the Decade of the Rogue for this Sex Detective.  Adopting a 'quantity over quality' philosophy to sex, I slept with about 50 women, and I'd say about 40% of them were older than me, sometimes 10-15 years older.  If you're a guy in his early 20s looking for uninhibited, experienced fun with someone mature enough not to create dramas afterwards, then you should check out some Cougar action instead of bemoaning it, you dumb fuck.  Or wait until you grow out of it like the rest of us by around age 30.

The Cougar is sexier, better experienced and less inhibited than young girls.
Just ignore the extra body hair.

Conversely, the whole older geezer/young chick thing has more biological reasoning behind it.  Sure, there are some gold-diggers out there, but contrary to popular wishful thinking (due to unpopular people always resenting popular people), a lot of these 50-60 yo cashed-up dudes end up in great relationships with 20-30 yo women.  Why? 

Like I said, biology.  A successful, experienced older man represents alpha-male status - he's successfully bested his competition over the last 30 years and has the trophies to prove it.  He's not having a mid-life crisis (that's just when guys try to be younger than they are) because he's accepted his maturity with grace while still maintaining his health and well-being.  He's a proven quantity of stability and (thanks to Viagara) virility.  Also, he's pretty much retired, having worked his ass off, and now has time to spoil that special someone.

These geezers are attracted to younger women for fertility reasons.  There's no actual shelf-life for male fertility, but women run on a limited biological timer.  If an older guy wants to one day leave a legacy for his years of success he will, by absolute definition, hook up with a young hot chick.


"I hear and see a lot of press about how women prefer bad boys to nice guys.  What's so wrong about being a nice person?"
I know, right?  It's getting to the stage where a guy with a hockey mask and a bike lamp necklace can't even hire a couple of low-rent prostitutes without getting negative attitude from a pimp.  Look, I'll give you some back story and then maybe you'll understand.  Last decade generation X went through a fair bit of hetero-male polarisation.  The Western world had adopted an insane policy of political correctness.  Some guys joined in while the rest of us remained to become the cunts we proudly are today.  The whole place got cluttered up with SNAGs (sensitive, new-age guys) and general nice guys as a result.  Active feminism was on the decline so many, so-called men tried to give themselves honourary vaginas and fill the void.  Meanwhile, many women were donning power suits and hitting the career market thanks to the opportunities generated by their feminist ancestors.  Single parenting also became socially acceptable and even admirable.  In other words some men deliberately became pussies while some women finally claimed well-deserved power over their lives.

The '90s female power suit - like this but with tits instead of guns.

Okay, so onto your question, pussy boy.  Women don't prefer bad boys to anything except a nice guy, because at least a bad boy can be fun sometimes and doesn't cry after sex.  Look at all the male heroes on TV - how many of them are sweet, sensitive, fuzzy, polite types?  Fuck all.  They tend to be confident, forthright, tough and cutely flawed in some way (with the exception of Sea Patrol where they're flawed in every way).  Knowing full well that women have at least twice the consumer influence on retail markets than men, advertisers and TV networks develop these male characters for this very reason.  Smallville, Supernatural, House, The Shield, Rush, all macho-based dramas, of course, but they were never designed for men because men don't give a shit about buying toiletries, cereals, drapes or whatever the hell else is being advertised during these shows.

There's always a time for being nice, but usually that's at work so you don't get fired, or in front of a magistrate because some pimp beat you up for making a perfectly safe and reasonable proposal to a couple of ungrateful bitches.  There's also a time for being bad, mean, crazy, upset, selfish, charitable, scared and brave.  But most of all just try being a man who knows when to engage the correct mode of behaviour at the time.
Fuck you, Carlo, I'm taking my business to someone who
appreciates my waders and my needs.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

The God of Sex

This entry pertains to Christian attitudes towards heterosexual sex and is hence written with that in mind.

Hey, do you know the difference between my girlfriend and friends of mine that happens to be girls?  Fucking, that's what.  My girlfriend has exclusive, reciprocal rights to my tackle.  It's sex that defines that difference.  When I catch up with a female friend and discuss Cartesian philosophy I don't get accused of intellectual cheating.  When I sit down with a chick I know and she's in tears over whatever it is girls cry about, I'm not committing emotional infidelity.  Yet, among many Christians, those platonic friendships are the best you should hope for before marriage, even if you're in a committed relationship.

Hell, even kissing is, to some, a wanton and unholy act.  Watch this video, then tell me one thing: just how badly do you want to savagely beat the fuck out of Frederick?  Not because of his virgin faith, or because he's marrying someone clearly under-age, but because of that hair and shit-eating grin.  If you answered "until his asshole pukes teeth" then we're on the same page.


Fuck you, Frederick.

This is why the whole "no pre-marital sex" thing in Christian relationships has me intrigued.  So I went online and found this dating advice site in order to get a better understanding of this archaic and arguably unhealthy stance.  After a few hours of trawling through its pages I realised that the site was as contradictory as the Bible on which its arguments were based.


I'm an amateur Sex Detective, which means solving mysteries to do with sexual politics and creepy behaviour.  And I'll be quite honest - the whole purity ring, abstinence, side-hugging deal creeps me out no end.  Sex is about as physically personal as you can get without being a surgeon, making its practice or lack thereof a very personal choice.  Public propoganda campaigns that promote celibacy over education strive to take that choice away through authotitarian pressure.  Enforced ignorance and denialism.

Okay, let's look at the 2 basic types of Christian sexual activity and what these Bible people have to say about it.

1. Self-service: Masturbation & God


I showed this to the Magistrate, but the Primary School still pressed charges.

Hard-core fundamentalists will tell you that flogging the ferret or double-clicking the mouse (I love that term so much thanks to my best mate) is a big Goddy no-no.  This comes from the story of Onan in Genesis chapter 38, the famous quote about spilling his seed upon the ground.  This is taken completely out of context because he was actually fucking his brother's widow (a social norm back then) at the time and just happened to decide to finish up outside her.  Was he aiming for her face and missed?  Or did he just hate the thought of having kids?  Either way, local religious law said he was meant to deposit his load in her bank so God fucked him up as punishment.

The good people at the Oasis site I mentioned above are a bit more lenient than that.  They throw around a few Bible quotes to do with immorality and lusty stuff, but the overall message seems to be that as long as you're not wanking full-time, and not having impure thoughts while doing so, it's probably okay to fill a few tube socks.

Wait! What?  They're saying you can self-sex but only if you don't think about sex?  How the fuck does that even work?

2. Interplay: Penis + Vagina

Christians are all for Christians dating and having relationships with other Christians, otherwise they might mingle with pagans and get funny ideas about science, natural justice and social freedoms.  Fucking before marriage is a big problem for them, though.  Why?  It'll ruin things before the marriage.  It'll cause unwanted pregnancies.  You'll set yourself up for heartbreak.  These answers are possibly valid but lack one thing that seals the deal: any statistical logic whatsoever.  The divorce rates among Christians is no lower than that of non-Christians.  Married couples have unplanned kids all the time.  I would even argue that many marriage break ups are more emotionally intense than unmarried relationships.

Some Christians have a very monochrome attitude about the nature of sex.  To them sex defines a relationship somewhat more dogmatically than it does to agnostic libertarians like myself.  There are either sex relationships within the union of marriage or non-sex relationships which apply to everyone else.  For me there seems to be more of a spectrum: one night stands, friends with benefits, non-sex friendships, open relationships, exclusive relationships, polyamory (multiple spouses) relationships and more.  Sure, pre-marital sex may incur certain risks, but forbidding the practice creates others, not the least of which is sexual incompatibility.

As humans we're built for sex.  Post-puberty we're biologically engineered to breed.  Although evolution has yet to catch up with medical science and social hygeine, we were originally designed to do so until death.  Back in biblical times anyone who lived more than forty years was either divinely superpowered or bad at maths.  Pairing couples into marriage was done by courtship (family arrangement), a tradition that wasn't supplanted by dating until the 20th Century.  Back then you married so young that the statistical chance of you fucking anyone else before your betrothed was small, especially while your family had a 'virginity on delivery' dowry contract to uphold.  Even if you did end up with a dud root your options were limited.  Cheating or separation was an extreme sport, punishable by a rock to the head or knife across the throat.

In these enlightened times sexual compatibility is a healthy, user-choice issue.  And this is why: unless both partners have had their genitals removed, sexual incompatibility will end a monogamous relationship.  When the sex is good and plenty in a relationship, it's topical importance rates only about 10%.  When it's bad and lacking it will bcome a 90% elephant in the room.  Do you really want to wait until after the wedding to discover that your mutual attraction was romantic but not sexual?  It's not until you're naked that she realises your cock looks like it was circumcised by an escalator accident while her vadge smells like a home-brewing shed.  Or that your dream of finally getting your dong hoovered will never be realised because she was taught in Sunday School that semen is made of battery acid.

"God loves sex more than you do"

That's an actual quote from the site.  I'm not sure if it's a challenge or a threat.  I mean, he fucked Onan pretty hard for doing it wrong so I guess his standards are pretty high.  But then again, he's a god, right?  It says so in his name.  God sex is bound to be better than what us humans try so clumsily to do to each other under the sheets or in the back of a car.  Christians are fallible beings, but only because they're constantly being compared to an infallible one.  Now, if God had said "choose your life sex partner wisely through a process of experimentation and experience and hopefully you'll land someone who will stick around for awhile" then maybe there would be less adultery-based divorces in church groups.  There's certainly be less confused, ignorant, horny teenagers in the youth groups who have to resort to awful rap songs instead.


I want to side-hug your brains out, yo!

The Answer:  I now realise why those Christian pre-marital rules about no frontal hugging, tongue kissing or lusty thinking creep me out so much.  They're exactly the same rules you usually only need to spell out to dangerously retarded kids or convicted sex offenders undergoing court-mandated psych treatment.